Since quantum theory's origin with Max Planck a century ago, its implications have created persisting controversy. The interaction of the quantum with the macroscopi worlds remains unclear while its prediction of ‘instantaneous action at a distance’—also termed ‘nonlocality’—conflicts with the predictions of special relativity that nothing can travel faster than light. The unresolved debates on these issues have created long-standing schisms in physics.
The phenomenon of nonlocality arises from the ‘quantum entanglement’ between quantum objects that have formerly interacted—even though astronomically large distances may separate these objects. This phenomenon has now been demonstrated repeatedly over the last twenty years, notably by the so-called Aspect Experiment (see Aspect, A., Dalibard, J. and Roger, G., Experimental Tests of Bell's Inequalities Using Time-varying Analyzers, Physical Review Letters 49 (1982) 1804–1807). The Aspect Experiment demonstrated that under some conditions certain atomic species and non-linear down conversion crystals can be induced to emit pairs of photons that are quantum entangled. Quantum entanglement provides that an influence imparted to one quantum particle will produce an effect on the counterpart quantum particle, the arrangement of the Aspect Experiment demonstrating that this effect must travel faster than light. The Aspect Experiment, repeated many times in the last 20 years, violates the Bell Inequalities, an alternative theory expounded by John Bell in the 1960s.
From the radical implications of the Aspect Experiment debate has evolved not merely into two but into three intractable positions—some positions not recognized by others. The three positions, types A, B and C, are outlined below—though only in the roughest sense would they correspond to the three types outlined by Redhead (see Redhead, M., Clarendon Press, 1987).
Upheld by Albert Einstein, Type A, Local Realism (Hidden Variables type II or ‘Local Hidden Variables’), asserts that any quantum object has a precise and exact position and momentum simultaneously, in defiance of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. For type A theorists a quantum object is a ‘point-particle’. Human observers however are for some reason unable to get around the Uncertainty Principle to discover the exact positions and momenta of the ‘locally real’ quantum objects.
Type A theorists uphold the Bell Inequalities; their violation by the Aspect Experiment led to John Bell ‘defecting’ from his espousal of type A local realism. Hence Type A became the losing side in the ‘Aspect Wars’. The violation of the Bell Inequalities led to local realist Karl Popper suggesting a more demanding experimental violation for the Bell Inequalities (see Karl Popper, “Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics”, Routledge (1982), pp 27–34).
Upheld by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg & Max Born, Type C, The Copenhagen Interpretation (Complementarity), enshrines the Uncertainty Principle as the key feature of the quantum realm—a feature developed into the Principle of Complementarity, also known as ‘wave-particle dualism’. For Copenhagenists the Uncertainty Principle implies that in the quantum realm there is no causality; individual quantum objects interact arbitrarily, there being only statistical interactions. However, the statistical equations embodying these interactions do allow for nonlocal interactions.
Type C has become the standard interpretation of quantum theory—quantum mechanics. Less well appreciated is that the Copenhagen Interpretation takes a uncompromisingly mathematical view of the world in the manner of Plato, as Heisenberg reveals when discussing the divisibility of matter, including subatomic particles:                In attempting continual division we ultimately arrive . . . at mathematical forms: . . . These forms are not themselves matter, but they shape it. (Encounters With Einstein, What is an Elementary Particle p. 80). The elementary particles in Plato's Timaeus are finally not substance but mathematical forms. . . . In modern quantum theory there can be no doubt that the elementary particles will finally also be mathematical forms, but of a much more complicated nature. (Physics & Philosophy, Quantum Theory and the Roots of Atomic Science pp. 59–60).        
That quantum mechanics is a mathematically-grounded theory is not adequately appreciated by its many quantum researchers; for example, they make misleading claims as to nonlocal phenomena contradicting the principles of quantum mechanics. Correcting two such misleading claims, Hall refers to the many “impossibility proofs” of quantum mechanics, proofs which deny that nonlocal interactions and phenomena can be used for transmitting information (see M. J. W. Hall, “Imprecise measurements and non-locality in quantum mechanics”, pages 89–91, Physics Letters A, vol. 125, no. 2–3, issued 2 Nov. 1987, Elsevier {The Netherlands}).
Concerning the ‘impossibility proofs’ against transmitting information through nonlocal processes, type A Local Realists concur with type C Copenhagenists, the ‘point-particle’ philosophy of the former revealing a mathematical philosophical basis differing only in details from the type C interpretation. Indeed, it is common for physicists to ‘resolve’ their philosophical differences by invoking complementarity—via the wave-particle dualism at the heart of the type C interpretation. In this way the ‘wave’—actually a ‘probability cloud’ rather than a physical object—is reconciled or harmonized with the type A ‘point particle’.
Nevertheless, there are a few quantum theorists who have admitted that quantum theory need not be grounded upon a fundamentally mathematical philosophy at all—unlike quantum mechanics. This position is the quantum interpretation given under the umbrella term: the Type B, Nonlocality (Hidden Variables type I or ‘Nonlocal Hidden Variables’;
In the Type B, Nonlocality (Hidden Variables type I or ‘Nonlocal Hidden Variables’), interpretation, the quantum objects have some sort of physical structure—albeit largely unknown. Upheld consistently by only a minority of quantum theorists, the nonlocal interpretation accepts the statistical quantum equations as accurate descriptions of quantum interactions, including the implied nonlocality of quantum interactions.
Pioneered by Dmitri Blokhintsev in the Soviet Union, by David Bohm and Jean-Pierre Vigier in the West, and by plasma theorists in various countries, this alternative uses much mathematics—but only descriptively. Rather than breaking down quantum objects into mathematical entities, they perceive that each quantum object has an internal physical structure, the Western and plasma theorist hypothesizing that a subatomic particle consists of a fluid vortex (e.g. Bohm & Vigier 1954). Hence the importance of the type B interpretation is twofold. First, it allows for a physical basis for interpreting, testing and developing nonlocal interactions. Secondly, the ‘impossibility proofs’ used to deny the possibility of nonlocal transmission of data no longer apply since they are not physical evidence against nonlocal information transfer but are rather derived from the mathematical formalism underpinning quantum mechanics. These proofs are valid only if one accepts the mathematical philosophies ‘grounding’ quantum mechanics as found with types A and C.
Confusingly, however, the type B nonlocal quantum interpretation is denied explicit recognition by many theorists and philosophers—including Karl Popper who writes of the ‘Hidden Variables Concept’ as “highly ambiguous” and one that “can be abandoned without loss” (see Karl Popper, “Realism in quantum mechanics and a new version of the EPR experiment”, in “Open Questions in Quantum Physics”, edited by G. Tarozzi and A. van der Merwe, published 1985 by D. Reidel (Dordrecht)). Popper's proposal constitutes a method to test his favoured type A local realism against type C complementarity. For Popper, type B interpretations intrude only insofar as they render ‘Hidden Variable Theory’ ambiguous.
There is a claim, deriving from type C and exploited by Popper (1982), that ‘mere knowledge’ can create a ‘virtual slit’ to alter the behaviour of any subatomic particles passing through it. For example, Storey et. al. put forward a scheme to test Popper's assertion as to “whether knowledge alone is sufficient to create uncertainty”—“a virtual slit created by our knowledge from the field measurement of where the atom is”. (see P. Storey, M. Collett, and D. Walls, “Measurement-induced diffraction and interference of atoms” Physical Review Letters, vol. 68, no. 4, issued 27 Jan. 1992, The American Physical Society (USA), pages 472–475). The ‘virtual slit’ in the light field, through which the atom has already passed can be modified through observer mediated actions. “By varying the phase of the field quadrature measured we vary the degree of localization [of the atom] and effectively create an atomic slit of adjustable width.” In other words, the authors are choosing to alter the physical conditions under which the atoms pass through the light field hence it is not necessarily the effect of the authors' knowledge alone but may readily be due to their active choice at work in adjusting the measuring devices. —That measurements conducted on quantum objects influence the behaviour of objects is a universally recognized quantum phenomenon.
Hence a reply to the implied assertion that ‘knowledge can create a virtual slit’ is as follows: the measurement process interferes with the light field and alters the deflection trajectories of the atoms passing through. Here the so-called ‘virtual slit’ is ‘created’ or modified by observer actions upon an atom that has already passed through the field. Hence there are varied explanations for the phenomenon—one being that the atom is inherently nonlocal with a resulting direct and instantaneous effect upon the field. Alternatively a type A theory might suggest ‘time reversed’ effects—i.e. the future controlling the past, or as with the Type C interpretation of Storey et al. that the observers' mere knowledge of the atom's state alters the nature of the field. Clearly, all three explanations are philosophical interpretations.
Yet Popper's preferred type A prediction would, if demonstrated, also lead to the violation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, a position not implied by type B nonlocality. In type B nonlocal interpretations, the Uncertainty Principle is evidence of a hidden ‘body’ behind the quantum object, not a point particle or a collection of equations but a dynamic physical object that possesses inherent spatial extension. Furthermore, this as yet little understood dynamism and spatial extension can be utilized by experimenters for practical purposes.
There have been various attempts to elaborate practical implications from quantum theory, although they may display a misunderstanding of physics or unfounded speculation. An example is the Canadian Patent Application No. 2,148,337 (Hrushovetz) where affirmative asides on cold fusion, coincidental sensation and signalling between starfish unfortunately serve only to discredit practical endeavour relating to quantum nonlocal interactions.
There have also been various proposals to exploit quantum entanglement for superluminal communication. In this context, the term ‘superluminal’ merely means ‘faster-than-light’ and does not necessarily imply the associated claims of local realism or special relativity. Indeed, it may be found that nonlocal information transfer occurs at speeds slower than light; nonetheless, this would not impact on the terrestrial applications of this signalling method.
An early proposal was presented in an article “FLASH—A Superluminal Communicator Based Upon a New Kind of Quantum Measurement”, by Nick Herbert (Foundations of Physics 12 [1982] 1171–1176). The Herbert proposal did not work because of his reliance upon “perfect photon Xeroxing”; in effect, a claim that photons could be cloned in large numbers, their statistical behaviour allowing for the interpretation of a signal by weeding out the noise. Photons cannot be ‘cloned’ in this manner, the ‘laser gain tube’ required to produce such perfect clones being impossible to produce physically, as Herbert later admitted, given that his process would violate the Uncertainty Principle.
A more recent proposal is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,057,541 (Steenblik). The Steenblik proposal would appear to work although it may be rather unwieldy as it involves the production of streams of quantum objects from multiple sources. Steenblik proposes the use of polarization to allow separation of signal information from noise in a correlated photon system for use of such a system for transmission of information. His experiment setup is now readily achievable with present-day technology, demonstrating the nonlocal transfer of information. This seems also the case for the arrangement disclosed in JP2000-295173 (Masanori).
The Steenblik method also operates through quantum entanglement, though there is no mention of the violation of the type A, Principle of Locality (i.e. special relativity) that would result. These quantum entangled nonlocal interactions act instantaneously, faster than light. Nonlocal interactions are termed by Steenblik “non-local quantum correlation events”, being represented in U.S. Pat. No. 6,057,541 by symbols (>>>) and (<<<); see table 1 (pages 9–10) and his drawings. That Steenblik's proposal might not seem to violate special relativity is an illusion created by the drawings in which the two steams of quantum objects are running parallel with each other rather than away from each other as with the Aspect Experiment.
It is against this background that the present invention has been developed.